Introduction

The case of Debra C. Gunn, M.D., Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates, P.A., and Obstetrical and Gynecological Associates P.L.L.C. v. Andre McCoy, as Permanent Guardian of Shannon Miles McCoy, an Incapacitated Person (554 S.W.3d 645) reviewed by the Supreme Court of Texas on June 15, 2018, centers on disputes regarding the admissibility of expert testimony and affidavits related to medical expenses. The petitioner, Dr. Debra Gunn and her associates, contested the exclusion of certain evidentiary materials that significantly influenced the trial court's judgment on future and past medical expenses for Shannon McCoy. Justice Phil Johnson, dissenting alongside Justice Boyd, argued that the exclusion of these testimonies was not harmless and likely led to an improper judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Phil Johnson, joined by Justice Boyd, dissents from the majority opinion, asserting that the trial court erred in excluding critical expert testimony from Dr. Hellen Schilling regarding Shannon McCoy's future medical care expenses. Furthermore, the dissent challenges the admissibility of affidavits submitted by subrogation agents concerning Shannon's past medical expenses, contending that these affidavits do not meet the statutory requirements under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 18.001. The dissent emphasizes that the excluded evidence was crucial to key issues in the case and that its exclusion was harmful, warranting a reversal of the court of appeals' judgment on both future and past medical expenses.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The dissent references several Texas cases to support the argument that the exclusion of crucial evidence likely causes an improper judgment. Key among them are:

• Central Expressway Sign Associations, Inc. v. Unnamed, 302 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. App. 2009)
• Diamond Offshore Services, Ltd. v. Williams, 542 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. 2018)
• Caffe Ribs, Inc. v. State, 487 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2016)
• JLG Trucking, LLC v. Garza, 466 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. 2015)
• Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik, 267 S.W.3d 867 (Tex. 2008)

These cases establish the framework for determining whether the exclusion of evidence is harmless or harmful based on its significance to key issues in the case. The dissent argues that the majority failed to apply this framework appropriately, leading to an erroneous judgment.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Johnson outlines the standard for determining reversible error in the exclusion of evidence. The key points include:

• Evidence is likely harmful if it is crucial to a key issue.
• Even if evidence is crucial, it may be harmless if it is cumulative or the remaining evidence is so one-sided that the excluded evidence would not change the judgment.

Applying this standard, the dissent contends that the exclusion of Dr. Schilling's testimony regarding future medical expenses was not harmless. The dissent emphasizes that:

• Future medical expenses constituted a key issue, representing a significant portion of the damages awarded.
• Dr. Schilling's testimony was not merely cumulative but provided a differing expert opinion that was crucial for the jury's deliberation.
• The remaining evidence, primarily Dr. Willingham's testimony, was not so one-sided as to render the exclusion of Dr. Schilling's testimony harmless.

Additionally, the dissent scrutinizes the affidavits submitted by subrogation agents for past medical expenses, arguing that they do not comply with statutory requirements. The affidavits lacked necessary details and were authored by individuals without appropriate medical knowledge or direct involvement with Shannon's care.

Impact

Should the dissenting opinion prevail, it would set a precedent reinforcing the strict standards for admitting expert testimony and affidavits related to medical expenses. This would:

• Ensure that only competent and directly involved individuals can provide such affidavits.
• Strengthen the requirement that expert testimony must be both relevant and non-cumulative to avoid unjust enrichment of the opposing party's position.
• Potentially lead to reversals in cases where excluded evidence is deemed crucial, thereby emphasizing the need for comprehensive and adequately supported evidence presentations during trials.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Harmless vs. Harmful Error

In appellate law, a harmless error occurs when a mistake in the trial court's procedures does not significantly affect the outcome of the case. Conversely, a harmful error is a procedural mistake that likely influenced the trial's result, potentially leading to an unjust verdict.

Subrogation Agents

Subrogation agents are entities or individuals who step into the shoes of an insurer to recover costs from the party responsible for the loss. In this case, subrogation agents provided affidavits purportedly verifying the reasonableness and necessity of past medical expenses.

Affidavits in Medical Expense Claims

An affidavit is a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, used as evidence in court. Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 18.001, affidavits supporting medical expenses must be detailed and provided by individuals with direct knowledge or records of the services.

Expert Testimony

Expert testimony involves specialized knowledge provided by qualified individuals to help the court understand evidence or determine a fact in issue. The admissibility of such testimony hinges on the expert's qualifications and the relevance and reliability of their opinion.

Conclusion

The dissenting opinion in Debra C. Gunn, M.D. et al. v. Andre McCoy serves as a critical examination of the standards governing the admissibility of expert testimony and affidavits in medical expense litigation. By highlighting the procedural errors in excluding pivotal evidence, Justice Johnson underscores the necessity for courts to adhere strictly to established legal frameworks to ensure fair and just outcomes. This judgment emphasizes the importance of comprehensive evidence presentation and the pivotal role of expert opinions in shaping judicial determinations on complex medical expense matters.